One Ford Narrative Too Many By Victor Davis Hanson

[mystery-ak]

One Ford Narrative Too Many
By Victor Davis Hanson| October 7th, 2018

In the end, the Christine Blasey Ford accusations collapsed. With them went the last effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

After thousands of hours of internal Senate and FBI investigations of Kavanaugh, as well as public discussions, open questioning, and media sensationalism, Ford remained unable to identify a single witness who might substantiate any of her narratives of an alleged sexual assault of nearly four decades past.

To substantiate her claim, the country was asked to jettison the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the need for corroborating testimony, witnesses, and physical evidence, the inadmissibility of hearsay, the need for reasonable statutes of limitations, considerations of motive, and the right of the accused to conduct vigorous cross-examination. That leap proved too much, especially when located in a larger progressive landscape of street theater antics, including Senate disruptions, walkouts, and sandbagging senators in hallways and elevators.

At the end of all things, Ford remained scarcely knowledgeable about the location and time of the assault than she was months earlier in her original anonymous complaint. Nor could she yet describe how she arrived at or left the party that may or may not have taken place in 1982. That Ford retained a crystal-clear account of having consumed just one beer and that Kavanaugh played the Hollywood role of a cruel, smirking, drunken, and privileged preppy groper were sensational accusations but not supportable.

After two weeks of the televised melodrama, the country rejected the therapeutic mindset and preferred what was logic and rational—without dismissing the chance that Ford somewhere at some time had experienced some sort of severe trauma.

more
https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/07/one-ford-narrative-too-many/

[goatprairie]

The number of holes in Ford's story were big enough to drive a fleet of semis through.
In summary, virtually everything about Ford and her testimony is exceptionally fishy.
What are the chances an accuser of a conservative SC nominee who will tilt the balance in favor of conservatives for the next twenty years or more would be a committed leftist with strong ties to anti-Trump people including FBI members and Democrats (her closest friend is a Trump-hating ex-FBI agent) and not just some ordinary woman with no political or ideological ties?
If someone did a probability test, I'd bet the chances of would be pretty slim.

[roamer_1]

To substantiate her claim, the country was asked to jettison the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the need for corroborating testimony, witnesses, and physical evidence, the inadmissibility of hearsay, the need for reasonable statutes of limitations, considerations of motive, and the right of the accused to conduct vigorous cross-examination. That leap proved too much, especially when located in a larger progressive landscape of street theater antics, including Senate disruptions, walkouts, and sandbagging senators in hallways and elevators.

There ya go.
It brings to mind the term most singularly used throughout this entire debacle:
'Credible'... Dr. Ford's 'credible' testimony.

The above quoted are the things that make testimony credible. Evidence.
Not the recollections of a single individual (not to mention 30 years later).

Even if there were others offering witness, that witness after 30 years should be looked at with a jaundiced eye. Only evidence stands the test of time. A rape kit. A child and a blood test. A blue dress. Something.

Rape is a terrible, terrible thing. I would prefer it were a capital offense.
But there is a reason why the thing must be reported, and evidence gathered.
And likewise, why there are limits.

A woman's honor, thus affronted, MUST be enough to make her come forward and lodge the complaint, AT THE TIME. THEN something can be done. THEN, even decades later, DNA can be compared. Photos can prove. Evidence can carry the accusation.

But a drunken grope, and testimony withheld for decades, and no witness or evidence of any kind...

Dr. Ford's testimony was not credible in the least part. Emotion laden, and sure to draw sympathy, perhaps, but in no way credible.

[XenaLee]

There ya go.
It brings to mind the term most singularly used throughout this entire debacle:
'Credible'... Dr. Ford's 'credible' testimony.

The above quoted are the things that make testimony credible. Evidence.
Not the recollections of a single individual (not to mention 30 years later).

Even if there were others offering witness, that witness after 30 years should be looked at with a jaundiced eye. Only evidence stands the test of time. A rape kit. A child and a blood test. A blue dress. Something.

Rape is a terrible, terrible thing. I would prefer it were a capital offense.
But there is a reason why the thing must be reported, and evidence gathered.
And likewise, why there are limits.

A woman's honor, thus affronted, MUST be enough to make her come forward and lodge the complaint, AT THE TIME. THEN something can be done. THEN, even decades later, DNA can be compared. Photos can prove. Evidence can carry the accusation.

But a drunken grope, and testimony withheld for decades, and no witness or evidence of any kind...

Dr. Ford's testimony was not credible in the least part. Emotion laden, and sure to draw sympathy, perhaps, but in no way credible.

And the fact that the accusers refused to release the therapists notes for the purposes of "evidence" of that credibility factor speaks volumes.  It shrieks, in fact.   Because we already know that nowhere in those notes was Brett Kavanaugh's name ever mentioned.

[roamer_1]

And the fact that the accusers refused to release the therapists notes for the purposes of "evidence" of that credibility factor speaks volumes.  It shrieks, in fact.   Because we already know that nowhere in those notes was Brett Kavanaugh's name ever mentioned.

Even if it were *ALL TRUE*
A drunken imposition? A ham-handed grope? From a 17 yo boy?
C'mon.
I don't think there's a woman on the planet who has not had to fend off a similar occasion.

She was willingly, purposefully in the room. Who is to say it is not regret after-the-fact (which certainly does happen)? That is why good girls don't go up to hotel rooms.

This is being treated as rape, when it is no such thing - Not even close.
What it does (to treat it so) is cheapen the actual act, because it is nothing of the sort.

[XenaLee]

Even if it were *ALL TRUE*
A drunken imposition? A ham-handed grope? From a 17 yo boy?
C'mon.
I don't think there's a woman on the planet who has not had to fend off a similar occasion.

She was willingly, purposefully in the room. Who is to say it is not regret after-the-fact (which certainly does happen)? That is why good girls don't go up to hotel rooms.

This is being treated as rape, when it is no such thing - Not even close.
What it does (to treat it so) is cheapen the actual act, because it is nothing of the sort.

No, it was not only not rape, it was not technically illegal at the time.  And considering the wild reputation her own school had re: the behavior of the females at that school as portrayed in their own yearbook, I think her main bitch would probably have been that he did NOT show any interest in her.  He probably never even noticed her, if he even saw her back then.   Her own best friend didn't know him, hadn't seen him... much less attended a party with him as one of the only other three boys there.  It's all just outlandish BS which stretches most normal, intelligent folk's imagination beyond the limits.  Typical leftie BS, IOW.

[roamer_1]

No, it was not only not rape, it was not technically illegal at the time.

AT THE TIME, she could have lodged a complaint. There is a mild sort of assault charge there - Would not have been actionable (no real harm), but it would have put the cops there, and put it on the record. Then there would BE a record.

It's all just outlandish BS which stretches most normal, intelligent folk's imagination beyond the limits.  Typical leftie BS, IOW.

Damn straight.

[XenaLee]

AT THE TIME, she could have lodged a complaint. There is a mild sort of assault charge there - Would not have been actionable (no real harm), but it would have put the cops there, and put it on the record. Then there would BE a record.

Damn straight.

Exactly.   The notion that she was so "traumatized" over a rape that never even occurred (except, perhaps, in her head).... that she didn't remember the event until decades later is patently absurd.   

I love that the GOP set her up to perjure herself with that polygraph test question.   Her lawyers knew it was a "we just got grabbed by the short hairs" question.  They should have advised her to get up and go home right there...lol.

[Fishrrman]

da goat wrote:
"The number of holes in Ford's story were big enough to drive a fleet of semis through.
In summary, virtually everything about Ford and her testimony is exceptionally fishy."

That's because it was 100% a made-up lie to begin with.

We should stop trying to refute her "story" with reason.
There's no point in even trying to counter a lie with facts or reason.

The best thing Republicans can do is to FORGET this woman.
She has already said she has "no further plans" to press her "claims".
What does that tell ya?

She was a tool, used for a purpose.
That purpose no longer being needed, she will be discarded.

She did win herself a lot of cash through gofundme, if she can collect.
And I'm sure she was "on the payroll" from one or two big behind-the-scenes "donors" as well.

Let her fade away into nothingness.
Which is where she belongs.

[goatprairie]

da goat wrote:
"The number of holes in Ford's story were big enough to drive a fleet of semis through.
In summary, virtually everything about Ford and her testimony is exceptionally fishy."

That's because it was 100% a made-up lie to begin with.

We should stop trying to refute her "story" with reason.
There's no point in even trying to counter a lie with facts or reason.

The best thing Republicans can do is to FORGET this woman.
She has already said she has "no further plans" to press her "claims".
What does that tell ya?

She was a tool, used for a purpose.
That purpose no longer being needed, she will be discarded.

She did win herself a lot of cash through gofundme, if she can collect.
And I'm sure she was "on the payroll" from one or two big behind-the-scenes "donors" as well.

Let her fade away into nothingness.
Which is where she belongs.

"That's because it was 100% a made-up lie to begin with."

My wife's opinion.  At the beginning, she thought Ford might be telling the truth.
But after her testimony she soured on her. She now thinks Ford made up everything.
I still think something might have happened to Ford at a party. Not rape but something more than what she wanted.
She got scared.  It most certainly wasn't Kavanaugh who put the moves on her. But she was determined to get revenge. On some male.
She had a hatred of her conservative father who  disapproved of her wild high school activities.
To get back at her father, Kavanaugh became her father. Kavanaugh represented the conservative male, like her father, who succeeded. 
Her attack on Kavanaugh was an attack by a radical leftist on conservative America. The America who disapproved of wild high school girls who were given everything but who didn't appreciate what they were given.

[DB]

She's an unhappy miserable person looking for an excuse for her unhappiness. She speaks and babbles like a child. It must be someone else's fault. So she's been on a quest to come up with an excuse, to be a victim, through a hidden trauma she had no memory of. With the help of "professionals" that morphed into a political weapon against her enemies. A twofer in her mind. Without a time and place it allows for virtually no facts to interfere with her story which I have to believe is entirely on purpose.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

She's an unhappy miserable person looking for an excuse for her unhappiness. She speaks and babbles like a child. It must be someone else's fault. So she's been on a quest to come up with an excuse, to be a victim, through a hidden trauma she had no memory of. With the help of "professionals" that morphed into a political weapon against her enemies. A twofer in her mind. Without a time and place it allows for virtually no facts to interfere with her story which I have to believe is entirely on purpose.

You have described the modern liberal.

[Snarknado]

Given that she can't remember exactly when or where it happened, isn't it possible that sometime over the years she saw it on her favorite soap opera? I mean, liberals confusing their fantasy worlds with reality is certainly nothing new - they don't even have to be drunk or doped up, though I imagine that helps...